Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

core/state: skip handleDestruction in hash based mode #1908

Conversation

NathanBSC
Copy link
Contributor

@NathanBSC NathanBSC commented Oct 8, 2023

Description

core/state: skip handleDestruction in hash based mode

Rationale

  1. storage deletion is useless for hash based db, so skip it.
  2. TestStateChanges fails now, but it is designed for path based only,
    and is fixed in core/state: implement fast storage deletion (#27955) #1909,
    so disable it for now.

Example

add an example CLI or API response...

Changes

Notable changes:

  • add each change in a bullet point here
  • ...

Copy link
Collaborator

@brilliant-lx brilliant-lx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it is ok for Hash based, but Path based will need to handle it in the future.

core/state/statedb.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
core/state/statedb.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@NathanBSC NathanBSC force-pushed the ignore_storage_delete_when_pathbased branch from 44eed4a to 909f53e Compare October 8, 2023 09:25
@NathanBSC NathanBSC changed the title core: ignore storage slots deletion for pathScheme-based db core/state: skip handleDestruction in hash based mode Oct 8, 2023
@NathanBSC NathanBSC force-pushed the ignore_storage_delete_when_pathbased branch from 909f53e to 717f0c4 Compare October 8, 2023 09:49
@brilliant-lx brilliant-lx merged commit f843951 into bnb-chain:master Oct 8, 2023
5 checks passed
@NathanBSC NathanBSC deleted the ignore_storage_delete_when_pathbased branch October 9, 2023 01:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants